- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
But I do like to be a starry-eyed optimist and think that maybe he did that because he thought it was the right thing to do. Who knows? Stranger things have happened...
If had a sudden attack of morality, I doubt he would have said, as Glenn noted, "disingenuously," "The fact that I was not involved in the decision-making process for any of these controversial policies and actions has been ignored," while failing to acknowledge (again, Glenn) he was an ardent supporter of those policies, including "enhanced interrogation techniques" and rendition, both of which he said he was intimately familiar with as a result of his CIA position.
No, I think it is what it seems: people spoke out before the nomination, thus creating pressure from those who insist that these political values not be de-prioritized or ignored. (final Glenn).
sysprog--Allowed to exercise more influence over the party than they already do, the Netroots would have the same disastrous effect that the presidential nomination of George McGovern did in 1972. JAMES KIRCHICK, Saturday, November 22nd 2008.
That's a really strange comparison to make. McGovern lost and there were no Netroots in 1972.
